Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @03:37PM
from the come-see-the-violence-inherent-in-the-system dept.

sycodon writes "Global Warming has become more than just a scientific issue and has been portrayed as nothing less than the End of the World by some. However, despite all the hoopla from Hollywood, Politicians and Science Bureaucrats, there is another side, but it's being suppressed according to Richard Lindzen, an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. From the article: 'Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.'"

Slashdot's financial situation has become more than just a mess and has been portrayed as nothing less than the End of the World by some. However, despite all the hoopla from Zonk, Malda and Scuttle Monkey, there is another side, but it's being suppressed according to various Slashdot denizens. From the article: 'Slashbots who dissent from the alarmism have seen their karma disappear, their posts derided, and themselves libeled as Evangelicals, Republicans, or worse. Consequently, lies about Slashdot's impending death gain credence even when they fly in the face of the truth that supposedly is their basis.'

Anyone notice how when everyone was saying global warming was seven or eight years ago, Slashdot was all for the Kyoto protocol. And now that the tide of scientific consensus is overwhelmingly saying that global warming exists and is a real problem, Slashdot is now saying it's fake?

Hint: Just because something is unpopular doesn't make it right. This is why people dislike nerds.

And now that the tide of scientific consensus is overwhelmingly saying that global warming exists and is a real problem, Slashdot is now saying it's fake?

No, Slashdot is merely reporting that one single individual's opinion column is saying global warming is fake. Slashdot is not a source, it is an amalgamation of sources. In this particular case, the source appears to be biased, as the author cites only three data points for his claim, one of which occurred 14 years ago and another which he himself wrote. As a result, I personally am taking this article with a serious grain of salt.

I have no doubt that global warming is real. However, there is a serious set of questions regarding what the threat actually is.For those who say "it has been happening since the last ice age" this is demonstrably false. We know that the climate changed for the *colder* in places like Greenland over the last thousand years or so.

The real issue is this: In any contentious or important subject (like global warming or heart disease), the minority viewpoints are often supressed. What? you mean that feeding

Anyone notice how when everyone was saying global warming was seven or eight years ago, Slashdot was all for the Kyoto protocol. And now that the tide of scientific consensus is overwhelmingly saying that global warming exists and is a real problem, Slashdot is now saying it's fake?

The Slashdot 'community' contains many story submitters with differing opinions. Those stories are judged by multiple editors who also have differing opinions. Furthermore, the topic of global warming has a multitude of fac

My first thought was that it would be great if some fake field of "science" could be created, and used as a sandbox for all the people for whom science is just one more bit of fuel for inane flamewars.

Then it occurred to me that we do have such a thing. Thank heavens for science fiction -- otherwise all the energy channeled into arguing about whether Kirk is better than Piccard would be pouring into real science, as well.

This is why it's important not to have State control over funding; anything unacceptable - which is of course entirely orthagonal to truth or falsehood - naturally, to a lesser or greater extent, tends to be suppressed.

Did you know Winston Churchill wasn't permitted to speak on the BBC (the State telecoms monopoly of the day ) between 1933 and 1939 because his views on Nazi Germany were considered too extreme?

The State is created by free men to protect liberty and freedom. The problem we face is when the State becomes a monster and threatens the very liberty and freedom it was created to protect.

The State inherently holds political power; to give the State economic power is to provide it with a forceful means to implement its own ends. This is one of the reasons why its so vital to keep the State out of economic activity; because of the danger of the abuse of that economic power.

It will also incur a great deal of political unpopularity to actually *do* something. I suspect the incumbents, who are on a knife's edge for re-election, would be best pleased if this hot potato could be defered for a few more years.

More generally of course there is always a reluctance to do something which is painful in the short term and only provides rewards in the long term.

What would the state have to gain by promoting global warming? Is everyone on Slashdot insane?

Wha? You can't see any political reason to get people all riled up and in an irrational panic?

It's possible to overdo the cynicism, but you need to bulk up.

In actuality, "the state" is too broad a classification. There are many forces in play here. There are people who genuinely believe the worst-case scenarios, and are just trying to help. There are people who see the worst-case scenarios as an opportunity to increase their power; you'll find some of these people in the EPA, or driving anything where "environmentalism" and "money" collide. There are people who may or may not care about global warming per se, but see it as the perfect tool to block industry, because they believe industrialization is instrinsically evil. (These people can be identified by asking them whether they'd support the use of a perfectly clean power source that enables us all to use ten times the power; there are people who will say "no" to this, because they really do think we should all go back to living as "noble savages".)

Also, for every accusation leveled at a global warming skeptic impugning the person, there is a corresponding motive on the global warming side. For instance, "you're in the pocket of the oil companies" corresponds to the anti-industrialists above, who will fight industry in any form.

And that's not even a complete list.

The issue has become extremely politicized, and I personally am not at all confident the science has survived the process. Science may be impersonal and rational, but the actual scientists are all political animals themselves and not immune to any of this, or even especially resistant.

It's not so much the state as an entity that gains, it's the individual people who are in positions of state power. And since these folks are often either politicians, or political appointees, they have lots at stake. If they, or their political allies, get proven wrong on an issue, it may affect their chances of future employment/prestige/election/etc. If they support research that undermines their political party's message (or their party's special interest group allies), they may be seen as "caving in" to the "enemy" and won't get the same campaign contributions.

Especially in Washington these days, every issue is a seen not as an opportunity to find the truth or fix a problem but as a club with which to attack the opposition. So if some research looks more likely to be compatible with one's views than others, guess which is more likely to be funded?

It's not just global warming - it's any issue. The science is simply another weapon in the political arsenal, to be discarded when it's inconvenient.

The BBC was a radio broadcaster, quasi-independent from government, in the nineteen thirties. I don't think they've ever been a telecom anything, let alone a monopoly.

I'm pretty sure the Post Office, which ran the telephone system back then, didn't ban Churchill from anything. As for the BBC, I can't find a reference to anything about Churchill not being allowed to speak upon it, so without further information, I'm going to chalk this down to typical pseudo-libertarian misleading given the term could mean "He was considered irrelevent to politics back then and thus never got airtime", or it could mean "Neville Chamberlain personally called up Reith, and told him if the BBC ever gave Churchill airtime, he'd personally revoke their charter."

I'm guessing the former explanation is more likely, knowing the historic spirit of independence of the BBC.

Did you know Winston Churchill wasn't permitted to speak on the BBC (the State telecoms monopoly of the day ) between 1933 and 1939 because his views on Nazi Germany were considered too extreme?

Did you know that the Bush administration has barred climate researchers working for the government from speaking directly to the press? And that press releases, statements, or publicly released research on any climate matter must pass through the White House first, where they are essentially rewritten?

---Piltz worked under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Each year, he helped write a report to Congress called "Our Changing Planet." Piltz says he is responsible for editing the report and sending a review draft to the White House.

Asked what happens, Piltz says: "It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy by the chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality." Asked who the chief of staff is, Piltz says, "Phil Cooney." Piltz says Cooney is not a scientist. "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House," he says.

Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist, became chief-of-staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Piltz says Cooney edited climate reports in his own hand. In one report, a line that said earth is undergoing rapid change becomes "may be undergoing change." "Uncertainty" becomes "significant remaining uncertainty." One line that says energy production contributes to warming was just crossed out.

"He was obviously passing it through a political screen," says Piltz. "He would put in the word potential or may or weaken or delete text that had to do with the likely consequence of climate change, pump up uncertainty language throughout." ----

From an "Alfred P. Sloan" professor. Take a look at the Board of Trustees of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. It's basically "Who's Who" of People Who Want This Talk of Global Warming to Go Away

Compeltely ignoring what he has to say and dismissing his claims as false based on your reason is, by definition, ad hominem [wikipedia.org], and maybe even worse, guilt-by-association. It has no place in a rational discussion. It's a useful tool to question the credibility before investing intellectual energy in learning about an

First we hear the science supporting global warming is being suppressed, now we hear that science opposing global warming is being suppressed. The only clear conclusion is to get politics out of science, but I don't think anyone's ever succeeded at that in its entire history.

The science supporting global warming is suppressed by the politicians.

The science opposing global warming is "suppressed" by peer review in prestigious journals.

You can easily figure out from that one where the scientific community stands on the issue.

(Note that his complaint isn't even that these people can't publish their work at all, it's that it's hard to publish these results in the most prestigious journals. That's kind of like saying that your human rights are being violated because Britney Spears refuses to date you.)

The article tells the truth that there is dissent around whether global warming will cause more storms, which is very debatable. But it implies with that the falsehood that global warming does not pose a significant risk to the future in many ways. Climate change is more than weather. I'm not saying there isn't hype about global warming on both sides, but this article is not really that helpful in understanding the broad issues involved. The discussion needs to be very broad, because that is the scope of the problem. Increased global temperatures have many effects...

Richard Lindzen is a well known Greenhouse denier. Don't suppress him or the other deniers - just read more about their Greenhouse denial industry [risingtide.org.uk], and the Greenhouse producers they cover for. Will you be surprised when you learn how their network is funded by polluters and petrofuel corporations?

1. You say "hey, this thing is more complex than we thought, let's try to understand it"2. Your are labeled an "enemy of the planet" by those who review grant money3. You get no further funding4. You go to the sources that WILL fund your research5. Because you are now backed by evil corporations your are branded a stooge6. Your peers ignore your data and input

Isn't it great how we're not surpressing anyone's research?

PS: "enemy of the planet" is a direct quote from those reviewing funding for a friend of mine who was in solar astrophysics at the time. His lab had dared to propose a model by which the sun could power observed warming.

If an industry funds research it must be false? What about agencies perpetuating their own existance by delivering research which supports their existance? Your link is exactly what the issue is all about. Just as much as their is a "Greenhouse Denial Industry" there is a "Greenhouse support at all cost industry". Neither side is completely wrong, just some sides are much more virulent at denouncing the other.Considering the track record of some of the Global Warming advocates and their actions I have

Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.

Also, the Wall Street Journal opinion section is not exactly the place to go to find genuine scientific analysis. It's a propaganda mill for the same business interests which support Richard Lindzen. There is plenty of money for scientists willing to speak on behalf of big business, despite Lindzen's contrary and alarmist claims.
It takes a special kind of courage to speak out on behalf of the downtrodden coal and oil industries.

This is EXACTLY the type of ad hominem attacks that hurt scientific debate rather than help it.

Instead of rebutting the facts of their science, climatogogists that don't hold global warming alarmist views are critisized for their funding. Where else is a climatologist supposed to get funding if they don't stand with the majority on this?

Real believers in global warming should welcome contrary views and science as an opportunity to refute those views and strengthen their own. Instead it's an attack ag

We were discussing an article whose claim was "These scientists are denied funding, skewing the debate."

Parent post said, this information is not accurate; these supposed pariah scientists are quite well-compensated for their research.

This post says parent post does not rebut the science, but engages in ad hominem attacks. Then it says, "Real believers in global warming should welcome contrary views and science as an opportunity to refute those views and strengthen their own. Instead it's an attack against how they are funded."

Of course, all of this was a discussion on funding, and discussing the science is (strangely) an attempt to distract from the issue actually at hand. Real opponents of global warming should welcome contrary views and science as an opportunity to refuse those views and strengthen their own. Instead it's an attack against how they are funded. (In this case, against their government funding.)

No, that's not quite right. The problem is that their theories and data are ignored because funding is slashed, and they must resort to gaining funding from intrests which are not neutral. This brings their research into question, and they are easily dismissed.

This cycle perpetuates itself, and we only end up hearing half of the story.

So, I'm afraid that I'm not receiving adequate government research dollars for my proposal on demonstrating that babies are delivered by storks.

As far as I can tell, any of the arguments used to defend anti-Global-Warming scientists can apply equally well to my babies-come-from-storks argument. Saying that the discussion isn't "balanced" and that we need to "teach the debate" or "show both sides" is what you say when you don't have arguments that are strong enough to convince your opponents in debate.

I'd like to keep an open mind on the issue of climate change, but the proponents of no-climate-crisis have failed to convince me, or pretty much anyone else. I'm not sure why we should continue to fund them. Saying that they're not getting their fair say isn't much of an argument.

TFA lists two areas of concern: 1) the denying of grants and funds for non-alarmist climatologists, 2) the double standard meted out to submitted papers. Alarmist papers are accepted readily and non-alarmist papers are rejected as being "not interesting". When non-alarmist papers are accepted they are not given the same opportunities for dissenting response.

Therefore, the poster you are attempting to discredit is quite right. The issue is not necessarily the funding of Lindzen, but the issues he raises

If you don't trust Lindzen, you can run your own global climate model at home and check the outputs yourself!

EdGCM [columbia.edu] is a NASA GCM that has been ported to run on Mac and Windows, and given a GUI interface. Want to turn the sun down by 2% or add some CO2? Just point and click and drag. Then, hit play, wait a day or two, and you'll have your own GCM outputs, complete with a visualization utility to view them with.

Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.

First off, it's not professional to call peers "alarmists", especially if you want respect from them. Scientists are usually if anything very reserved about stating an opinion, so I'm highly skeptical of scientists willing to immediately and simply label a broad class of their peers as "alarmists". It might explain why these guys are getting their funding yanked and such. Second, just like "Darwinism" isn't a theory but proven fact- global warming, the fact that humans are causing it, and that we had better do something very quickly or we'll be fucked- is all widely accepted. We have decades of research and evidence, like glacial "records" going back more than long enough to show the planet has never seen anything like us humans, climate-wise. Or evidence that on September 11th, when the FAA grounded planes across the country, the weather patterns changed dramatically.

It's widely accepted that pretending we're not having a massive effect on our planet's climate is the exact opposite of "alarmism"- it's sticking your head in the sand and hoping the lion's gone away.

We have an administration which forbids government scientists from speaking with press, and requires all climate-related press releases to be routed directly through the whitehouse, where they are absolutely gutted? (really. 60 minutes got photocopies of the press releases and reports, after they'd been scribbled all over by white house staff.)

So in one corner, we have a bunch of disgruntled scientists claiming they're being marginalized for taking an unpopular view. And on the other hand, we have scientists being gagged and censored by the Bush administration for presenting valid evidence that the climate is seriously fucked up.

Yeah, I'm really going to loose sleep over the head-in-the-sand people getting to be "unpopular"...

"Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes."
I really hated that sentence in the beginning of the article. Many gov'ts have signed the Kyoto agreement, and many reputable scientists have urged us to lower CO2 emissions.
While I admit there is always a chance that so many people were wrong, it is still retarded to think it's better to take a "wait and see" approach. We need to lower CO2 levels now and then see if it helps, not wait until it is too late.

Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

I don't lose sleep knowing corporate advocates are being suppressed. I wish every corporate advocate would drown in a lake of their own vomit actually.

As far as legitimate scientists being falsely labelled as corporate stooges, there's really no justification for claiming that global warming isn't a sound theory. Flatly dismissing the impact of human polutants on global warming is like driving the Titanic into icebergs because some tool labelled her 'unsinkable'.

The only thing he disagrees with is whether this is caused by civilization.

Now, in the last IPCC report (THE source for the scientific consensus, at least of the one attacked by Lindzen in this article), it is said that human activities are "likely" the cause of global warming. Not "certainly", but "likely". Even on an earth that is getting hot, I can't see how this is suppressing the view that humans may not be the cause of global warming.

In fact, the only thing he is attacking with any substance are the casual, frequently overheard claims that the recent increase in storms, tornados etc. is caused by global warming. Well, that's a straw-man as far as I am concerned. I have never heard this a scientific claim, just as an informal "could well be" answer e.g. by meteorologist in reply to question by journalists.

Find a way to survive the natural process... Of course before we can do that we have to convince everyone else that it is a natural process. Especially since they already have this preconcieved notion that it's all caused by Humanity.

Lindzen gets his papers rejected by Science and Nature, has a bunch of grants not come through, and then whines about having his views being "suppressed". Well, if we take those criteria, 99% of all scientists are being "suppressed" because that's the rule rather than the exception.

I applaud Nature and Science in "suppressing" people like Lindzen--they simply don't have anything to say that I care about anymore, and I suspect that's true for the majority of readers of those journals. As far as I'm concerned, reducing CO2 emissions has so many other economic, political, and environmental benefits that this is simply not an interesting debate anymore; arguments like Lindzen's should be relegated to obscure journals.

"Science" and "Nature" are hack journals nowadays. The only reason that one publishes in those is for publicity. Pure and simple. I haven't seen an article pertaining to atmospheric science come through there that I haven't been able to poke significant holes in for years now. (I speak mainly for atmospheric science articles in those journals. Other articles may be fine... I don't know.)

The real science happens in the less-public journals. And, believe it or not, the actual science always leads to more questions than answers. There are details that aren't covered in science news coverage that are vital to making valid conclusions in these issues. But, the nature of the "publish-or-perish" funding makes careful science difficult to do.

So, we're left with more questions than answers. Look at Dr. Denning's carbon cycle findings ( http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/globalcarboncy cle.html [colostate.edu] ) as a prime example of what happens when we begin looking more closely at these problems. Many scientists are tossing out potential hypotheses in a science that is very difficult to easily test these hypotheses properly. There's a rush to put out results of any type by the P-or-P philosophy... easiest is verification of previous results in a slightly different regime.

I'm not claiming that the scientists in this debate are bad scientists... I'm claiming that they're getting caught up in a problem that is so incredibly complex that we're far from having a more-than-cursory handle on. A lot of this is pioneering work... and even pioneers in sciences can get things wrong or not understand everything (how many refinements of Einstein's relativity theory have there been in the last couple decades, for example?).

It's not just about politics or philosophy or science or anything like that. It's seeing the maturation of a whole discipline of science. Lindzen is completely right in claiming that alarmists may be taking things too far. Lindzen is completely right in claiming that there are politics involved here. He may be off-base in a number of points, but cooler heads will prevail eventually. This is an exciting time to watch all this... it's like our generation's relativity (20's and 30's) or nuclear chemistry (late-40's to 60's).

Those who are getting up in arms about all this... settle down. Seriously. Your hyperventilations are only speeding up the global warming process!;) Cooler heads will prevail eventually.

""Science" and "Nature" are hack journals nowadays. The only reason that one publishes in those is for publicity. Pure and simple. I haven't seen an article pertaining to atmospheric science come through there that I haven't been able to poke significant holes in for years now."

If YOU have significant holes to poke, publish them! Don't worry about an academic journal, get a blog. If you are worried about it affecting your own chances for funding and positions, then create an anonymous blog. Get the word out, make them responsible for their holes. If you don't, you are just as culpable as they in letting incorrect findings stand for future generations of research to assume and thus come to incorrect or irreconcilable findings.

You might think that's someone else's job because you are "just" a Ph.D. student, but because of your specialist knowledge, there probably isn't hardly anyone else. The number of people with your knowledge of climatology is probably a few thousand worldwide or less. If you don't do it, no one will, and the rest of us will just be taken for fools because we don't have the knowledge to rebut.

Unfortunately, taking out a blog and talking about holes in science isn't much of a route. Real science takes place in peer reviewed journals. There are simply too many people without education on blogs; which makes blogs a popularity contest (see slashdot.org) instead of the scientific process.

The thing about global warming is that the theory is sound, even if unprovable. The consequences are huge. And there are other consequences to the large amount of CO2 production like the death of all molluscs which we might consider (see ocean acidification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification [wikipedia.org]). When the results of an event are immense, they should impact your planning even if your not sure that the event will happen. I could also tie in the insecurity of our nation as a reason to cut down on oil consumption and the massive amounts of mercury released into the oceans as a reason to cut down on coal use. Really, how many reasons do we need?

People get all caught up in defending their lifestyle, by poking holes in another's argument. They're so caught up in defending themselves that they forget they're just dead wrong. I call these people apologists.

Sorta like the guy who slept with my wife back before she and I split up. I of course didn't know about it (gettin' played is no fun at all). But what irked me is that he kept telling me to my face how great he thought my relationship was and then when it fell apart said it was doomed to failure from the start. He was one of the reasons it failed, but denied it. Sorta like all the people driving SUV's sitting in gridlock traffic on the highway. In 20 years they'll say it was all inevitable. People are so funny I could cry.

In addendum, I may add that a lot of the holes are typically significant issues with the data sources themselves. A non-trivial amount of the data that is used in various parts of climate research (and other atmospheric disciplines) is, well, not very good for the purpose that it is being used in. Data that is only good to +/- 10 units is being used to show trends of +/- 1 or 2 units over the entire timeline, for example. And little of that error problem is being addressed by the authors of the work... for various reasons. But, it's often the best data they have to work with.

There IS some quality data out there, but a lot of it just is not that great. And much of the really great data hasn't been accumulated long enough to really show long-term trends, since it has only been collected in the last 10-20 years. A lot of the issues in the field of climate are just being brought up and handled. That's why I said that it's an exciting time to be watching this field closely. Climatologists are just beginning to get some clout and truly innovative and solid ideas in the last couple decades. It's a field that is maturing literally in front of our eyes. In about a decade or two, we should have a lot more understanding as to how the climate system is working. And a lot of that will just come from the better data that will have some time to accumulate. And from some incredible ideas and great minds.

Read up on many science history books... you'll see the parallel sort of issues between the growth of current climate change science and other sciences as they began to mature. This is a rough, rough period with a lot of conflicting ideas, philosophies, and beliefs. But, it's exciting to watch and be a part of! Eventually, we'll understand what's happening better. Until then, enjoy the ride! I know I am.:-D

The earth has supposedly been warming over some period of very, very recent history. So with over 4 billion years of weather, we humans in our infinite wisdom are choosing about 100 years of data and trying to extrapolate where the earth is heading.

Let's face it, religious zealots have been calling for the End of the World since the beginning of time and now Scientific zealots are getting into the act.

What's really funny is that when I was a kid the real weather scare was the coming Ice Age. What happen to those Ice Age zealots anyway? Probably driven underground by the latest "Sky is Falling" group known as the Global Warming evangelists.

I'm so sick of the press reporting on predictions of idiots from idiot scientists to idiot psychics as if they were fact and then never following up when most of these nutballs are wrong.

I guess the press doesn't want to report on the failings of these wackjobs since the press was the ones who gave them credence in the first damn place.

We had Y2K in our industry and look how many billions were spent on something that we all knew was a bunch of BS. Many people post rationalized that the reason nothing bad happened was because something was done. But these people were part of the problem and don't want to admit to their bosses that huge amounts of money didn't need to be spent. And if you don't believe me, just look at the countries that didn't spend the money we did. No doomsday for them even though very little was done.

Global warming is going to follow the same stupid path. Tomorrow there will be a new threat and billions will be spent on that problem, meanwhile we'll be paying $10.00 / gallon for gas and no one will be solving the real problems.

Let's see...spend four years in college, another year getting a masters, another four years getting a PhD, and another two years doing post doc research. Then make 40,000 a year teaching at a B level university for the next ten years. If you get tenure then your pay goes up to 80,000, but most likely you don't get tenure and end up effectively getting fired.

OR work go to business school and make 250,000 your first year out of college.

I'm sure the world's climate scientists are all just in it for the money.

Certainly they would get a lot more money to prove that global warming wasn't real despite the fact that CO2 concentrations are way higher than they have ever been in the last ten thousand years. Fixing global warming will cost certain companies billions of dollars, although with carbon trading the economy as a whole doesn't really suffer. Even still though, I'd bet the big companies would be willing to pay a people a lot of money to say the problem isn't real, no?

People who disagree with global warming are just blowing hot air. If we don't suppress them, this hot air is going to contribute to global warming.

I am 100% on the side of the global warming crowd. The way I see it, if global warming does happen, I will be able to score points by telling everyone "I told you so." If it doesn't happen, I can claim that I saved the planet.

My main opposition to the Republicans on this is that they vigorously oppose any research designed to try to determine whether or not there is a problem.

There really isn't any doubt that the Earth has warmed up over the last 25 years. There is also no doubt that some of the basic parameters of our climatological system have changed.

We need to find out how much of the global warming that we have seen is due to our activities. It might be 10%. It might be 90%. We just don't know. It might even be 100% natural.

We need to determine how far the warming will go. At what point will it slow down or even reverse itself? It really doesn't matter at all whether or not we are the cause.

We need to find out whether or not we can slow it down or even stop it as well as how to do that.

Finally, we need to determine, based on the other factors, whether or not we should even try to slow it down or stop it. The benefits of global warming, up to a reasonable point, may outweigh the downside.

More hot air...
It's hilarious, as a grad student in the atmospheric sciences, how compartmentalized this beleif is.
I work with geologists, glaciologists, climatologists, and meteorologists all days, and there are several signs that warming is occuring- the most convincing being the melt of tropical glaciers, of which all of them are melting. I know this because I've examined the satellite photography myself, and modeled the glacial decline.
This gets the geologists and glaciologists into the mix.
The climate databases almost always show a climatological rise, so the climatologists are in on it.
However, teh real-time meteorologists really don't think it's occuring- and if you think that they don't know what's going on, these are the people that are forecasting your weather all day. Go figure...

Because it was the year of a record-for-the-century El Nino and was above the trend line. Pick an exceptionally hot year as a baseline and next few years will have trouble keeping up. It's like starting with 1999 and concluding that the Internet industry is dying.

Right you are the bloody heretic deserves to have his ass perched on a pike! Imagine the audacity of someone who studies events spanning millions of years of history projecting trends into the future. It's not like the last 4 or 5 iceage- hothouse cycles might have any clues about what's really happening

Your username is a misnomer. You are not sufficiently critical of the study which you cite. If you reread this topic, you will see several 5-score comments which explain why the study you are citing is flawed.

I'm going to pretend that your question was genuine instead of rhetorical. Here goes...Our current understanding is that greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide (whether they come from natural events or from industrial activity) are the driving force behind the warming. Lately (since the Industrial Revolution) we've been pumping ever-increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Trying to argue that we shouldn't be concerned about industrial greenhouse gasses because carbon dioxide variations o

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Full story here There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998.

Well, that position is not without its critics. There is evidence to suggest that the way the data was collected was not adjusted for changes in the technology they used to gather it, and when it was collected -- specifically, how the heat-shielding to rule out the effects of sunlight warming has been improved over time without that being factored into the analysis.

This blog [blogspot.com] gives a nice summary of what happened, as well as a bunch of relevant links. (The author [utoronto.ca] is an astrophysicist, so he's not without some ability to read science papers and follow the math.)

Dr Sherwood argues that it is not. In particular, changes in radiosonde design intended to reduce the original problem of over-heating have not always been accommodated by reductions in the correction factors for more recently collected data. Those data have thus been over-corrected, reducing the apparent temperature below the actual temperature.

Dr Sherwood and his colleagues hit on a ruse to test this idea. Because weather stations around the world release their balloons simultaneously, some of the measurements are taken in daylight and some in darkness. By comparing the raw data, the team was able to identify a trend: recorded night-time temperatures in the troposphere (night being the ultimate form of shade) have indeed risen. It is only daytime temperatures that seem to have dropped. Previous work, which has concentrated on average values, failed to highlight this distinction, which seems to have been caused by over-correction of the daytime figures.

In short, since the heat shielding on the measuring devices became more effective, the daytime measurements were skewed downward, while the nighttime readings showed a warming trend.

So if the improved technology skews the data, you need to look a little harder at the way the data was generated.

This issue is by no means settled, but what you cite is one possible interpretation which may not fully fit the inherent issues in the way the data was collected.

Yes we should stop listening to scientists and start listening to novelists instead. I was especially impressed by how Chrighton was able to demolish all evidence for global warming by calling environmentalism a religion. That sealed it for me.

I dont know... in my opinion, Real Climate has a pretty hard bias, and I've read more than once that they simply delete posts that they don't like/can't address.

RC is one resource for forming an opinion- but they seem a bit like using the Catholic Church as reference for deciding if Christ existed or not.

Facts are... Mars and other objects in the solar system are warming up too, there is correlation between the arms of the galaxy and past climate fluctuation, the climate -has- been hotter and colder than it is now without our doing anything and.... many experts were sure that we were going to have a new ice age only 30 years ago. Not all experts- and not all experts believe in global warming either.

Man, I've been arguing that point for years. Cementification of the planet's surface is "proven" to affect global warming. (ie: a recent study even pointed out the wind farms, you know...safe, clean, energy, cause a dramatic increase in surface temperature and they noted the surrounding area suffered more dessertification)

The first major city lost to global warming is in the USA, but the USA government still doesn't believe in global warming. Sounds to me like the people who don't believe in it are still winning. Which city is next I wonder?

What a cesspool of nonsense. The first city lost to global warming? I'm pretty sure it was lost to a hurricane. Do you have proof that global warming causes hurricanes? Did you read the article where he goes on to describe the HUGE debate in the science community about whether global warming would produce STRONGER or WEAKER hurricanes? There is no consensus that hurricanes are getting stronger because of global warming. You are literally making that up.

Next you go ont to say "Sounds to me like people who don't believe in it are still winning". Guess what, genius... he states.. repeatedly... the earth is WARMING. He "believes" in global warming as much as I believe in your ability to read (and your ability to choose not to). What he argues is the effect it will have on the climate, and it's actual cause.

Real scientists don't make dumb statements implying that global warming caused Katrina. That's idiot-babble. No real scientists that I know of declare that global warming doesn't exist. For the 927th time in the history of this topic on slashdot, I have to correct some ignoramus who is modded up to +5 because he doesn't understand the scientific debate between the existence and the cause of global warming. And lets not even pretend that science can hope to predict the effect of global warming in the long-term future.

It is people precisely like you that make it so easy for right-wing to keep parrading out the same strawman and striking them down. You are arguing with people who haven't existed in 20 years. Get your facts straight, read the articles, and then think for at least 45 seconds about what you want to say before parroting this same tired old tripe that is easily refuted. It's ridiculous.

but let's be clear, the fact that hurricanes now have many times more than ten times the energy, due to global warming, which created the very storm surge that blew out the dikes, had nothing to do with global warming.
I'm sorry, but if I take a cup and heat it up with ten times the energy I used before to cause a few bubbles, I'm not going to be surprised when it bubbles like roiling boil this time.

I'm sorry, but exactly whose rectum did you retrieve those numbers from? I've never seen any such study,

I was going to go into climatology/meteorology - but then i learned to code - however I still have a large knowledge on the subject.Ocean surface temperature under a hurricane determines it's maximum possible strength - it's also a generial indicator of it's probable strength. As ocean surface temperatures rise that creates larger areas with higher levels of potential energy, and temperatures above the minimum to hold enough potential energy to spawn hurricanes (about 80F) last for more in the year.

Think that gives you doubts...try this:...And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.

Is the planet becoming warmer? A tough question, knowing that calorimetry is the most delicate kind of physical measurement. What do you measure, when, for how long? Methods and opinions differ. Magic satellites giving you a single figure for easy comparison are wishful thinking. You need a data interpretation method, and that's where opinions and tempers flare.

Is it a long-term trend? Also a tough question. Historical data is sparse and sometimes dubious. Not to mention that the methods and instruments have changed. For instance, the Albany, NY weather bureau reports average temperatures decreasing since the start of the century. Does that prove anything? Is this a fluke?

Is the observed change man-made?Again, a difficult question. It's not like you can run a parallele experiment on a second Earth devoid of mankind, although some people are
planning it [lifesite.net]. Earth went through extreme temperature swings before the first ape showed up. The Deep Core ice-sampling project showed variations of about 7C (14F) in less than a century, several times over the last 200,000 years or so. That's huge. More over, the sun activity is not a constant. Sun activity variations wiped out the Maya (see "Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands" [sciencemag.org] and google for more.). Astronomers think that the Mars icecap hasn't grown up as large in the last Martian winter as compared to pictures sent by the Viking probes: If that's true, it's not because of human activity. Then of course there is the well-known CO2 effect. How do we separate the natural and man-made causes? What's predominent?

I don't have answers, and serious scientists are very cautious too. Good data is too scarse, and too much money is involved for rational debate.

Most debates on the subject don't even acknowledge the existence of these separate questions, so how can they even be constructive? Both sides end up yelling at each other, but they aren't talking about the same thing.

I might be feeding the trolls, but here goes...It is NOT being accepting to give all viewpoints equal weight. If you told me that gravity was created by invisible gnomes pouring out anti-wedgies that held me down to earth by the seat of my pants, I'd have no problem telling you that you're an idiot for believing it.

"Creationism is a completely valid viewpoint, and so is evolution. They're both *possible*."

One is way more possible than the other. I'll take the one that has a mountain of verifiable scientific

I'm getting tired of the science community saying 'MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!' constantly.

Too fucking bad! Tired of gravity being 9.8m/s2 too or the Earth revolving around the Sun? There's scientific knowledge, which adheres to a specific set of criteria and not-scientific knowledge, which is what doesn't adhere to that criteria. Either adhere to the criteria or hit the highway, that's how science works. Change that and it's not science.

Hating on conservatives because of your prejudice against all of them being

Our 650,000+ years of ice core data, and thousands of years of proxy data, and hundreds of years of measurement data, couled with growing physical understanding of the process involved, are not sufficient to determine if warming is happening on this planet.

But three years of poorly uunderstood changes in ice cap size on mars is definitive evidence of solar-system wide warming, which disproves anthropogenic warming on earth..

* Since Mars has no oceans and a thin atmosphere, the thermal inertia is low, and Martian climate is easily perturbed by external influences, including solar variations. [...]* Globally, the mean temperature of the Martian atmosphere is particularly sensitive to the strength and duration of hemispheric dust storms, (see for example [...]here [nature.com]). Large scale dust storms change the atmospheric opacity and convection; as always when comparing mean temperatures, the altitude at which the measurement is made matters, but to the extent it is sensible to speak of a mean temperature for Mars, the evidence is for significant cooling from the 1970's, when Viking made measurements, compared to current temperatures. However, this is essentially due to large scale dust storms that were common back then, compared to a lower level of storminess now.[...]* The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere. Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 (subscription required) showed, using the Mars GCM, that the south polar climate is unstable due to the peculiar topography near the pole, and the current configuration is on the instability border; we therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as the regional climate transits between the unstable states.

In short - you can't use Mars as proof/disproof of global warming on Earth.

While the cheapest way to increase MPG is to use less metal, you're discounting the research into more efficient engines and lighter but stronger construction materials and techniques, plus technology that helps reduce the risk of collision in the first place.

let each individual focus on what they believe in.

For the past several millenia (at least), people have tried as hard as they can to believe in as little as possible. Part of the problem is education, part is apathy, and part are just assholes who believe it's their god-given right to use other people's property as their trash dump.

Global warming is more myth than science. Much of it comes from socialist desires to control large corporations -- "why not make cars more fuel efficient?" Well, you end up making them less safe in collisions, too. "Why not curtail smokestacks?" Because other countries won't, and you'll lose jobs on top of jobs (this is already evident).

It's hard to think of more obvious logical fallacies, but hey. For the first point (ignoring the ad hominim), my Jetta is safe [iihs.org] in a collision... and I get 42-45 mpg on the

"for some reason we're living longer even with all this terrible pollution."

We' not talking about lifespan, but quality of life.
Driving around in a car and working in a factory is not what has allowed the lifespan to creep up to near 80. It is, first and foremost, antibiotics and immunizations. Secondly, it is *regulation* -- in the form of clean municipal water that doesn't have cholera in it, fire codes that prevent people dying in exitless factories and fires that run rampant across cities, people fal

I'm not surprised in the least by this. It is harder and harder to find anti-global warming facts not because there aren't any, but because people who know the facts are afraid to bring them to light.

Could this possibly be because there are neither "anti-global warming facts" nor "pro-global warming facts"? There are only facts (and data, but the two are rarely the same). Everything else is interpretation - but the vast majority of scientists who are actively working on interpreting the facts say that rap

Perhaps this is true about the public's perception of global warming, but there is a lot of data behind global warming. It's fair to argue that people's models are wrong, or that the data points to a different set of conclusions than global warming (or more accurately global climate change), but there is a fair bit of real science to this stuff.

You've got the good old tyme free market religion my friend. How about getting some facts?

According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States [census.gov], total R&D spending by the U.S. government was $85.2 billion of the total $283.8 billion spent - 30% of the total in 2003. Compare that figure to 1970 (57%), 1980 (47%), 1990 (40%), and 2000 (25%). As you can see, "With more and more scientific studies paid for out of public dollars" can only reasonably be applied from the period 2000-2003 and it does not

There's a general rule of thumb about scientific claims. When a researcher goes through abnormal channels, like going directly to the press, the alarm bells should ring. When a researcher starts tacitly or directly invoking conspiracy theories, even more alarms should go off.

being forced by government to make purchasing decisions doesn't make much sense. If a car pollutes, and if the pollution affects the environment, then people who love the environment should make a choice to not buy polluting cars...

That makes no sense. Preventing people from harming each other is a well-established reason for government intervention. If I start a chemical factory in my back yard, and it leaks and poisons my neighbors, people will probably say, "Gee, the government should have done somethi